User talk:Maui/archive17
...BWAHAHAHA. 05:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :First non-you spam. Yayyyyy (Talk • ) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC) First actual section Lolol 05:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :primer poste en otra lengua (Talk • ) 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :: First post in a non-default font. 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::First post in a different color. (Talk • ) 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::(CTU) 8002 enuJ 81 ,62:50 .tsop sdrawkcab tsriF :::::First post to include a Link (Talk • ) 05:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::First post to use the word "acclimate." 05:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::This is the first post containing a complete sentence. (Talk • ) 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::First post without an image. Felix 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::First post obviously containing the letter "y" (Talk • ) 05:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::First unkind post. Ruricu smells. 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::i herd u liek first post referencing an internet meme and mudkipz. (Talk • ) 05:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::As per GW:AGF, I'd like to point out that this is the first post flaunting policy. 05:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) First post after a reset indent. (Talk • ) 05:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :First post with a stupid smiley. >:{D 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::First post on this page created after Firefox 3 reached 4 Million downloads (Talk • ) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::First post with a Rickroll. 05:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::First post containing a non-signature internal link that had to be corrected for accuracy. (Talk • ) 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::First post with RT in RandomTime 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::First post made using Opera. 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::First post while Maui steals her neighbor's internet. 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::First post typed whilst eyes closed RandomTime 05:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::First post by an IP 05:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::First seven-word post including a hyphenated word. (Talk • ) 05:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::First post containing a palindrome race car. 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::First post typed whilst video encoding RandomTime 05:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::First post typed by a user in her undergarments. :D 05:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) First unsigned post. —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Felix Omni ( ) 05:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC). :(edit conflict) First post that occured after multiple edit conflicts. (Talk • ) 06:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) second post typed by aFirst post in a box. --mendel 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::First post boasting a word count so numerous that it was automatically word wrapped on 1280x1024 resolution monitors using the Monobook skin. (Talk • ) 06:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::First hypocritical post; you guys spam too much. — Warw/Wick 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::First post posted using the root word "post" as a verb. (Talk • ) 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::First post following a post preceded by a post posted by a female user that is not me. 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::First post questioning when we should stop posting new posts. When should we stop posting new posts? (Talk • ) 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::First post posted and signed by the poster and signer of the previous post. (Talk • ) 06:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::First post advocating a never-ending stream of first posts. Let's never stop. 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::First post fearing for the sanity of those involved in this endeavor. Wouldn't we start screaming after a few days? 06:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::First post referencing a previous post and disagreeing with a statement made within. I'm definitely going to need to stop soon. (Talk • ) 06:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) "First post typed by a user in her undergarments. :D" is untrue first post saying that a post was unture RandomTime 06:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :First post offering webcam to prove the validity of a previous post. 06:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::First post requesting to be the validator of the previous statement. (Talk • ) 06:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::First post made by somone talking on IRC! — Warw/Wick 06:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::First post that involves moving the post of another user. 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::First post agreed with by May when RT made the point about first post made by a user in her undergarments. Also first post by a person who has had their comment removed.. :< — Warw/Wick 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::First post following a nonsensical post. 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::First post making a factor in a situation that has been judged; Unless you took your overgarments off before posting that, you were, technically, already wearing them, so your first post was the first post made by.. Never mind. Long-windedness ftw. — Warw/Wick 06:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::First post made out of confusion. 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::First post by a user in her undergarment whos name starts with an S (oh yeah I went there, XD) --''Shadowphoenix'' 06:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::First post made challenging the previous poster to a Jell-O wrestling match! 06:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::First post made by a user in undergarments and a dressing gown! Hah! ;D — Warw/Wick 06:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::First post made accepting the challenge of JEllo wrestling (fight!) --''Shadowphoenix'' 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::First post made by a user about to go afk to prepare Jell-O, and/or straighten her hair. More likely the latter. 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::First post that asks the previous poster, why do you not fix ur hair that at the computer like I do? (lol) --''Shadowphoenix'' 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::::First Post pondering what Maui hadn't been wearing before ahe was first posting in undergarments. And how she got on the net before stealing her neighbor's. --mendel 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::First post answering multiple questions: There's no electrical outlet near my laptop, I was fully dressed for my first few posts, and my interwubs died, which led to the 'net-stealing. 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::First post thanking Maui. Thank you for your answers. --mendel 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::First post by a bot RT bot 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::First post by a shoepuppet. Dr Ishmael 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Hi, everyone stop please. kthx --R Phalange 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :First post after a spoilsport. --mendel 17:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::Perhaps instead of spamming, one could contribute somewhere else in a constructive manner? If you want to spam firsts and wtfs, go to PvX - I hear they're somewhat specialised in that area. Alternatively, use an instant messenger or better yet, the irc channel. Spam doesn't belong on the wiki, whether it be in the mainspace or userspace. --R Phalange 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::First post with an 80's catchphrase: Don't have a cow, man. User talkpage spam never hurt anything. —Dr Ishmael 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::First post expressing blatant amazement. This is still going on? xD 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::(edit conflict) Except it wastes time, nullifies recent changes and diverts people away from doing something constructive (i.e. mainspace edits, constructive discussion). It's part of why GuildWiki has regressed into what it is now. Playing Mafia here is another thing, but I'll leave that for another time. --R Phalange 18:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::First post linking to another user's contributions: . 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::If you mean to use that as a tool against my argument, you've failed. None of my contributions are spam. In most cases, it also takes more than one person to produce spam; it's generally a progressive thing. --R Phalange 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::First post linking to a dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spam If Maui fnds it annoying then it is spam, otherwise it is just good fun. Try not take things like this seriously :) --''Shadowphoenix'' 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict) Maui's point was that you are telling us to, in paraphrase, "stop spamming and start editing mainspace!" You yourself have only 2 mainspace edits. I think the conclusion should be obvious. —Dr Ishmael 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Forgive me for not reading your urban dictionary (which is hardly ever literally correct), but, as I said, this "fun" doesn't belong on a wiki. Are you telling me not to take seriously something that ruins the maintainability of a wiki (i.e. recent changes) for hours? Something that takes most of the userbase online at that time away from actual, constructive edits? As I said, there are better and less annoying alternatives to spamming on a wiki. I'm surprised, Shadowphoenix, that you don't think this wiki "is a joke" what with GuildWiki regressing ever quicker into PvX. I seem to be the only person on this side of an argument, and I find it generally doesn't succeed when the other side is the loudest, regardless of how right an argument is. :::::::::Dr ismael, one doesn't need to actively edit the mainspace in order to be constructive -- discussion generally helps things too. There were a couple of things, yes, that I did that perhaps weren't the most constructive, but I will gladly agree to that; I won't defend something that was wrong. However, I have always said that if I am doing something unconstructive, give me a warning or a ban. Auron did that, so I know where to stop and you can guarantee my non-constructiveness to not appear again. :::::::::Toodles. --R Phalange 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Phalange, there's also the fact that were you to ask us to stop many hours ago, when RC was being well and truly clogged by "first posts," it would have been a reasonable request. However, there had been no more than, what, three? two recent posts, and very staggered at that, before you told them to stop. In addition, look at RC: it's being clogged by my mainspace edits, not talkpage edits. Sure, they're not life-threateningly important edits, but they're attempting to return a uniform look to the boss pages... and in the process, taking up far more room in the Recent Changes than the odd "first post." 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::R, the anarchy that is PvX is not anywhere near Gwiki. PvX is a troll riddled place that is full of "fuck you"'s and NPA violations, that hasnt happened here yet (I do admit that PvX is getting a bit better, however). Also Maui said what I was going to say so no need to repeat it. --''Shadowphoenix'' 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::(edit conflict) Sorry to bother you again with that annoying orange box (and this will be my last response for now), but when an event occurs and no opposition arises to that event (regardless of when it was), one generally assumes that event is passable. Perhaps I intended to stop this from happening in future, with a message and an argument as to why it's a bad thing. I'll leave you to go back to your edits now (regardless of size, they're constructive). :::::::::::Shadowphoenix, PvX is hardly an anarchy what with Auron and Defiant Elements at the helm; however, that's not my point. In its earlier times, PvX was probably how GuildWiki is now. Talk page spam, distractions, yet still generally constructive in terms of build additions (and lots of room for improvement). There probably wasn't any vocal opposition, so people thought that was ok. Then we go further down that slippery slope into what it is now. Excuse me for thinking this, but I don't want GuildWiki to become anything PvX is at the moment (or before the threat of permabans on trolls). Sure, there are attempts by the admin base to reduce the spam and trolling, but they might not be too successful when the main userbase continues to think their antics are ok. As I said, it takes an argument against that to actually get those people to realise that what they are doing is not ok and has long term effects. I might not be entirely correct in my vision of PvX's early politics, but as I said -- things are progressive. They usually start somewhere and regress. --R Phalange 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) 1. GET TO WORK SPAMMERS!. 2. RC can be set to hide minor edits and to filter out user talk namespace. 3. This joke died a while ago. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :First post that wants your BRAINNNNNNSSS! (and likely the first one that needs an explanation, too)--mendel 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::First post by a child molester. reanor 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::First post after an awkward silence. --mendel 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC) template docs First post about a wiki issue. No, seriously, thank you for correcting the spelling on the two template docs. What lead you to read them at this time? (Just curious.) --mendel 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :Not a problem. :] I was doing my Project:Misspellings patrol, and those popped up; I hesitated, actually, since they are templates. 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::Hah, found the misspellings page before I read your response! The /doc pages are not templates themselves (well, they get included, but only by the template they're meant to document), so there's never any harm in editing them. --mendel 07:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::Cool. That's what I figured, but since I'm horrid at dealing with templates and such, I'm glad that you reaffirmed this. ;] 07:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Edits to Boss pages While you're at it; can you be arsed to change stuff like "Items Dropped" to "Items dropped"? --- -- (s)talkpage 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :Sure thing. :] 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Editing Have you heard of the show preview button? Bug 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :What good would that do, exactly? 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::She's editing multiple pages. — Warw/Wick 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::You're only changing capitals, you don't need to edit every section for that, you can just change the whole page at the same time. Sorry, I didn't mean show preview - I read some things wrong. Bug 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::I can, but it's considerably faster to open two small sections rather than hunt through an entire page. However... as you wish. 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, most of those pages are extremely short anyway, aren't they? :P Not much to hunt for. Anyway, if you don't want to, whatever. Just trying to help. Bug 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Most boss pages consist of five to six sections, with varying lengths of notes and trivia. Granted they're much shorter than, say, mission pages, but compare five to six sections with two brief sentences and you'll see my point. ;] 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Right. Sorry. Not too familiar with the pages around this wiki :p Bug 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Not a problem. Despite the sarcasm of your original post, I know you were just trying to increase efficiency. :D 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Yah, sorry about that. Didn't mean to sound that sarcastic. Bug 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Incidentally, the IGN listed at the top of your talk page made me laugh. 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Revert war on Legendary Sword Hi, I know this was yesterday, but apparently this is still an issue. Don't engage in a revert war, even if you think the information entered is false. If your undo is reverted itself, leave it be -- contact the person reverting (i.e. the one repeatedly putting in said false information) and/or discuss on the relevant talk page. If that person continues, try to keep discussing or simply wait it out. Toodles, from your friendly neighbourhood do-goody, --R Phalange 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) :Thanks, Phalange. I realize the existence of 1RV, but (at least in my wiki tenure) nobody has made an issue over 1RV'ing vandalism. At least, until this mendel/Auron thing. 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) ::The issue is not the GW:1RV, the issue is GW:AGF vs. vandalism. --mendel 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I want to keep this off the Auron pages, they're cluttered enough as it is, so I'm posting here. The interested reader is advised to consult User_talk:M.mendel/Auron#Legendary_Sword and User_talk:Auron_of_Neon/Archive_12#Legendary_Sword_revert_war. Maui, Rukias and Felix did a good job in getting the price off the page which the anon wanted to see added. Why then do I come across as defending the anon and critical of the "wiki defenders"? Because I believe with authority comes responsibility, and that means scrutiny. It's a lot of fun to be uncivilized, and a lot of fun to fight, but not necessarily for the person at the other end. Assume for a moment, if you will, good faith. Assume a user who's new to the wiki and wants to add a price that he feels is missing. What's the likelyhood of that? Not high, but I believe it is a possibility. As I said, let's assume good faith. Will the user know GW:1RV? Likely not. Will the user read his "new messages"? He's not likely to know that they can pertain to his edits; when I am using a webforum I usually ignore incoming PMs until I'm done with whatever I'm concentrating on. Even if he did, what does he see? A user telling him off. Does he need to accept the authority of a user? No. So Mr "the Price is right" stubbornly defends his "right" to add a price to the article. Is it worth appeasing this guy? Yes; he's found the wiki, he's made the step from reading/lurking to editing; if he can be gotten to read some of the relevant policies and abide by them, he's going to be an asset. Well, maybe he just wants to pull a scam; but even then he can become a good editor in due time. So what is our aim? We want the price off the page, and we want the user to know we have a reason for that. To make the latter easier in the future, I've added the GW:PRICE shortcut that redirects into GW:Article Retention (GW:AR); if Rukias had linked that on the talkpage he'd have spoken with policy authority, not just with a single user opinion. If after that the anon keeps reverting, it is simple to put a link to GW:1RV on the page and the Template:Ban. Let's do that quickly. The ban threat alone may make the anon stop, and no further action need then be taken. If there is, depending on the situation, would a 1-hour ban be enough to give the user a chance to read up on the policies? Remember, he may not even have read his messages. In short, I'm glad there are editors who do RC patrol, and I'm glad they help the wiki. I'm just wishing that you can be both fun and friendly, because the day will come when the guy or gal on the other end deserves that good faith - it has happened, and it will happen again. I'll strive to do the same when I check RC - except that usually it's squeaky clean already because of the good job you do. Thanks! --◄mendel► 23:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC) :The problem is that almost always, the posted price is way above market and that the guy is most likely ingame saying "Check guildwiki, its totally worth that much". [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC) ::He isn't saying don't revert it, he's saying revert as much as needed (at least in my interpretation), so long as you politely inform the user the reason why it was reverted. He is preaching good practice, not scolding revert wars or assume good faith violations. — Powersurge360Violencia 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC) :::Yeah, basically that's it. Informing the user that (s)he's breaking policy backs you (and your reverts) up with community authority - otherwise, it appears as if you're just speaking for yourself. GW:PRICE is short enough to slam it into the summary of every revert if you want to. Take that, foul fiend! --◄mendel► 00:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Hai since you are officially popular now, I thought I should pop in say hi, since it seems I'm the only person on this wiki who DOESN'T know you yet.-- (Talk) ( ) 00:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC) :I thought I was officially popular two months ago! ): Heartbreaker. 01:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC) ::Sorry! I'm a bit slow on things now-a-days. So how's it goin'?-- (Talk) ( ) 01:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC) :::I'm good! I think I'm going to go see Get Smart tonight. :D How are you doing, Monsieur 47? 01:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Is that already out? I definately have to see that soon. I'm doing quite well, mademoiselle Maui.-- (Talk) ( ) 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC) :::::It came out today. And, if you were curious, it was bloody amazing. :D!!! 05:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, I agree. Pretty good with lots of hints at the past. reanor 04:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Definately gonna see it then. btw, WHY am I so freaking addicted to this wiki when I don't even play the game it's about anymore??-- (Talk) ( ) 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::A lot of us could ask the same question. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Then go play the game. No more questions. :) Cress Arvein 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I get bored of the game too easily. Rather play AOE.-- (Talk) ( ) 23:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::A O E ? --- -- (s)talkpage 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Pretty sure he meant Age of Empires ICY FIFTY FIVE 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) Someone didn't read the hidden note. 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :Ugh, RTSes. Last time I played AoE it was the Titans expansion. My AI opponent had a Titan and was in the classical age. I had mud huts and angry giraffes. Hurray Set! 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::I think you're thinking of AoM, not AoE :| — Warw/Wick 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :::AOE II FTW. [[User:Himm Taeguk|'HimmTaeguk']] (T/ 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::AoM is an AoE spin-off, Warw. 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :::::I have no idea how to read hidden notes >_> ICY FIFTY FIVE 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Edit look for code between [[User:Himm Taeguk|'HimmTaeguk']] (T/ 16:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Ah okay thanks :) ICY FIFTY FIVE 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Age of Empires II: The Conquerors Expansion is what I was talking about.-- (Talk) ( ) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::AoE II TC is, imo, the best way to play ICY FIFTY FIVE 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::What do you mean "the best way to play"?-- (Talk) ( ) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::As in, w/out the expansion is no fun, AoE II (Death Star > All) and AoE III is no fun :P ICY FIFTY FIVE 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::AoE 3 is not AoE. Firearms ruin the game, as does the truncated upgrade tree. AoE has little men with clubs who you upgrade a bunch of times, not gun people with 2 upgrades tops. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::: AoEII remains my favorite of the series in general. AoEIII and AoM in part overly simplified the game.Uberness 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)